Hunters Killed 63 Deer in Bethel in 2013

The take from Bethel was 13th among Fairfield County towns.

A deer (Patch file photo)
A deer (Patch file photo)
More than 10,000 deer were hunted and killed in Connecticut in 2013, mostly by archery rather than shotgun, according to the latest tally from state officials.

In total, 10,108 deer were hunted and killed here — the figure represents rifle kills through Dec. 12 and bow-and-arrow kills through Dec. 31, the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection reports. About 57 percent of the kills came through archery, the state says.

Search through the interactive map above to get town-by-town information, including what types of deer were hunted and whether the kill happened on public or private land.

(Two notes on the data: a "button buck" is a young male deer, typically six months old, that has hubs where antlers will grow, and "points" are the individual tines on a buck's antlers.)

In Fairfield County, the highest tally of any single municipality by far is Newtown, where 264 deer were hunted and killed. It's also the highest in the state. No deer were hunted and killed in Bridgeport. Here’s a breakdown of Fairfield County towns:

1. Newtown—264
2. Ridgefield—175
3. Wilton—150
4. Redding—124
5. Easton—118
6. Fairfield—91
7. Greenwich—83
8. Weston—80
9. Danbury—76
10. New Canaan—73
11. Monroe—65
12. Norwalk—64
13. Bethel—63
14. Stamford—59
15. Trumbull—58
16. Shelton—57
17. Sherman—55
18. Brookfield—53
19. New Fairfield—53
20. Darien—33
21. Westport—17
22. Stratford—15
23. Bridgeport—0

The state laws that regulate deer hunting are complex and situation-specific. Open season generally is open for a period of several weeks between September and December, and depends largely on what types of weapons are used and whether land is public or private. Deer hunting regulations for Connecticut, updated in September 2011, can be found here.

On Tuesday, the DEEP reported that no hunting-related injuries occurred (among sportsmen) in 2013 — the third consecutive year where no one was hurt by a discharged firearm or bow.

What did happen in 2013 was one hunter wearing a safety harness fell from a tree, the state reported.

“This level of safety is remarkable in light of more than 300,000 deer hunting permits issued and hunters spending, a cumulative total nearly 6 million days afield over that period,” the DEEP said.

Rick Jacobson, director of the DEEP Wildlife Division, described Connecticut hunters as safety leaders, “due in large part to mandatory firearms and archery education programs, which have produced a safety-conscious generation of hunters.”

“Although deer hunters enjoyed a near perfect safety record during the past six seasons, our goal has always been to have no injuries of any kind, period,” he said.
efiddes January 27, 2014 at 07:33 PM
I researched state records for hunting accidents,both bow and gun. Essentially, all the injuries,going back years and years, were people hurting themselves by falling out of tree stands,or similar self inflicted accidental I juries. The state implemented extensive training and safety programs. For the record,I do not hunt,but I totally support the right to do so for those who wish to.
Polaroidgirl39 January 27, 2014 at 07:36 PM
What a great thing to be proud of...BLOOD LUST! Oh there's always..."I eat what I kill."...It's a shame folks don't know about stores like Hannafords & the A&P...you can actually get meat there...There is NO excuse for senseless killing...and to call it 'hunting' is a joke...you all know it's BLOOD LUST! Killing anything and feeling good and oh so studly about is pathetic!
Bethel Observer January 27, 2014 at 07:49 PM
Paula, it's BLOOD LUST whenever you crave a steak, pork, chicken, or some other living mammal to consume. We kill with our own hands and eat that which we kill. You prefer to eat killed animals from farms that are then packaged and purchased at your local grocer. Hypocrisy, much?
Paula Antolini January 27, 2014 at 07:59 PM
Polaroidgirl39 I will buy you coffee anytime. Everyone else, read this USA reports archive, just for 2013 (and you can find all years on this website too) for hunting injuries and deaths: http://animalrights.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=animalrights&cdn=newsissues&tm=76&f=10&tt=12&bt=1&bts=1&zu=http%3A//www.all-creatures.org/cash/accident-center.html And here's 2014 so far: http://animalrights.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=animalrights&cdn=newsissues&tm=76&f=10&tt=12&bt=1&bts=1&zu=http%3A//www.all-creatures.org/cash/accident-center.html
Paula Antolini January 28, 2014 at 08:03 AM
You've hit on a good point Bethel Observer, we need to reevaluate our food practices all across the board! And please do not assume what I "prefer" or "crave," as you have no idea whatsoever. Don't speak to me about hypocrisy either, as that exists greatly in the hunting world if they are so into safety (they claim) yet close their eyes to other safety issues in order that they might hunt virgin properties at all costs etc. I have witnessed this behavior and it is revolting. Then you have to ask why is it that they have to so desperately put a positive spin to what they do in order to justify their "recreational sport", if it is so "noble" as they claim? If it were that noble it would be a no-brainer that people would praise them naturally, but obviously they are not, and there are ethics issues here, among others. Why also are they so "touchy" about words used like "cull" and "harvesting" instead of "killing"? (another attempt at spinning). Call a spade a spade. Again I want to say this is NOT a gun issue, it is a humanitarian/ethics issue.
Bethel Observer January 28, 2014 at 09:22 AM
Paula, we're talking about the harvesting of deer. How can you even bring up "humanitarian/ethics" in regard to deer? They're deer. They're not human nor are they able to participate in ethics. Yeesh. Just keep going to the grocer to buy your dead animal meat. Some of us shoot our own and store it in our freezers because we are self-reliant.
Paula Antolini January 28, 2014 at 09:53 AM
Bethel Observer your comprehension is off today, did you have your coffee yet? :-). I did not say deer have ethics, your arguments are now absurd. ("Yeesh.") I have no problem with self reliance, but as I mentioned before, it's the process of the unnecessary painful killing, for sport mostly, and many other reasons, all not to do with the noble spin they put on it.... and no it is not "harvesting." "They're not HUMAN" you say? (re: deer) Well now aren't YOU a lovely human being. I guess we humans have the right to kill and/or torture any living creature that is NOT human then, according to your theory? And mind telling me what the characteristics of "being human" are? Because you have none of that.
Bethel Observer January 28, 2014 at 10:07 AM
Paula, do you honestly expect me to believe that deer are human, or have human rights? Seriously? And I support the the ASPCA. Torturing an animal, specifically a domesticated animal, is reprehensible and repugnant. Those people are slightly above pond scum. But to hunt a deer, kill it, dress it, and eat it is hardly torture. It's me being the Alpha Predator, and eating an animal designed to be eaten. Maybe you should start a Deer Support Group and have the local deer population gather to protest or write emails to one of our State Senators. Oh wait. They can't. They're deer.
Paula Antolini January 28, 2014 at 10:22 AM
Spinning words again Bethel Observer, who said deer are human? (more like grasping at straws) ...and... Alpha Predator? Really? Is that your other spin? Does that make you feel better? or righteous, whatever? I think we need to put you in the middle of the African jungle sans your firearms and see how much you think you have no predators. That aside macho man, no animal is "designed" to be eaten (or I am sure lions would think that of you). How can you, in the same breath, say you support the ASPCA yet not have a second thought to blast a deer into oblivion until it dies a painful death? Not torture you say? Should you feel the arrow or bullet I am sure you would think differently (especially when it's a bad hit and runs off and endures that injury or dies slow). But then again that's the point, you do NOT want to think of that part and continue to make excuses for your actions to try and make them sound noble and normal and/or "designed" and make claims of "plagues." Can you tell me that 100% of hunters eat the meat? I think you'd be shocked at the statistics of how many don't and just love the "sport of it."
Bethel Observer January 28, 2014 at 10:32 AM
Paula, your own words condemn you in their hypocrisy. It seems blatantly obvious that you are unhinged and incapable of rational discussion about hunting deer. Deer are animals. Not humans. They have no rights. Start your Deer Support Group and take pictures of it. Let them know I shall see them next hunting season and am more than happy to shoot them and eat them. Venison chili is a specialty of mine. Keep eating that farm-raised dead animal meat, which is the height of animal cruelty defined. Keep defending deer as being human.
Paula Antolini January 28, 2014 at 10:45 AM
Bethel Observer, stop the dramatics, name calling, accusations, lies, irrational arguments, spinning and information-twisting. It is getting old, as you flounder for justification for your "recreational sport." But I do suppose it is your only option, to argue against cruelty to animals, that all other creatures are "not human" you say (meaning useless and at the mercy of your whims as to what you can and will do to them, regardless of suffering, at any excuse you choose, NOT that it means they are human as you misunderstood) and therefore "rational discussion" with you has ended here at your own fault. I think your tactics mentioned in my first sentence are adolescent and rude, to say the least. My aim here was to promote safety aspects but now this has turned into an animal rights argument because you refuse to discuss safety. I sent you the links to numerous injuries/deaths info.and you ignored it. Typical.
Bethel Observer January 28, 2014 at 11:06 AM
Paula, last try here, the name of this article is about the number of deer taken by hunters in Bethel. Gun safety/hunting safety is NOT the topic. You're just sore that people will continue to kill deer for sport or for food and need a platform to rail for their "rights", seeing how you say that hunting is cruel and torturous. Sad. So sad that your reading comprehension is so lacking. Did you graduate from public schools? Never mind, don't bother answering. I'll be busy putting a venison roast into my slow-cooker for dinner tonight.
Paula Antolini January 28, 2014 at 11:47 AM
Clueless, Bethel Observer. The point is about suffering.....and come to think of it, you are making me! È troppo è troppo. Sei senza speranza.
Paula Antolini January 28, 2014 at 11:51 AM
Wow, Bethel Observer such a prejudiced comment about public schools, you should be ashamed. You should visit Bethel schools sometime, they are the best!
Scott January 29, 2014 at 10:03 AM
Paula the only one that is hopeless is you. When I said that you came from the city to the "country" you discounted my claim but you know what Paula simple searches prove I was correct. Now I also see you have no Wildlife Conservation degree as well. The people who do have the degrees and all the knowledge are the ones creating the regulations and seasons for hunting and fishing based on something you seem to disregard....FACTS. Now you say it’s all about money well consider this a spoiler alert everything is about money now if it wasn't there would be gasp….more hunting since you just couldn't go down to BigY and buy your meat. I don't know if you are independently wealthy but I know I am not and our state is not as well. Spending $1000 to spay deer is probably not something the CT wants to spend money on but if you are willing to foot the bill by all means. Now by your statements hunting is on its last leg so why the fuss? As long as animals are "killed" for meat which we consume hunting will continue even if Paula's Plan is cost effective. Everything is emotional now. Why does the suffering as you put it of 63 deer in Bethel mean more than the countless animals killed to feed Bethel families yearly? Did those animals not suffer? Now if it is about safety then guess what….you are responsible for your safety so you need to take care when hunting is going on in the woods. How you want to do that is up to you. Will accidents happen…yes but they are few and far between. You feeling safe in the woods is not my problem or the states. Just stop with the emotional arguments just as you don’t care how I feel….I don’t care how you feel either.
Paula Antolini January 29, 2014 at 10:50 AM
Scott….Not sure what "searches" you are doing but I do know there is much misinformation on the net about people too, and I have an issue with you making such assumptions about what I believe or how I grew up (or even investigating my personal life) when you never met me and do not know me or who I am, for starters. Do you enjoy being a stalker and then accuser? >>>Second, it is very degrading to label anyone's opinion as "emotional," a tactic I find is repeatedly used (in other interactions, not only in chat rooms) whenever anyone attempts to say all OTHER opinions that are not in line with theirs, are simply coming from an "emotional" person. Get over that, it's old and reprehensible. >>>Now, if you want to feed families, all that "support of the economy" money you are doling out to do the "recreational sport" can be directly contributed to charity to help the poor, IF you are so concerned. >>>No, safety is NOT solely MY (or a person's) responsibility in the woods. To require non-hunting residents to purchase expensive "hunter's orange" clothing for their families (including pets too) in order to take a walk in the woods, and have to worry about safety to begin with, is ridiculous and an unnecessary and unfair financial burden. To put people's lives in jeopardy and not allow them the EQUAL right as hunters, a right to enjoy land (purchased with their own tax dollars in many cases) with passive recreational activities of their choosing, is dangerous and unjust. There are simple solutions of separate days for hikers and hunters, for starters, IF hunting must be done. But again I have an issue with the process, animal suffering, "recreational sport" aspect to killing, and ignoring of many safety aspects in order to hunt. There are many safety and other issues completely ignored by hunters JUST so they can hunt as they please (besides the animal suffering that is). of course NONE of this, nor the accident statistics EVER appears on pro-hunting sites such as the DEEP!
Paula Antolini January 29, 2014 at 10:51 AM
To Scott (continued)… >>>There are laws as to why hunters cannot be within a certain distance of schools, due to the danger imposed by firearms discharge and range, yet they freely discharge weapons within range of school buses with hundreds of school children aboard and bus drivers too. How they missed this one is beyond reason. I intend on pursuing that avenue fully, among other safety issues. Safety is first, so is ethics and sensibility but you are blind to that it seems. >>>BTW no one needs a degree in a subject to know what ethics and safety is. >>>The issue of money being the end-all to decision making is not always the sensible solution when human and animal lives are concerned, FYI. There is always some alternative solution if people put their minds together and work together to solve problems, it should not be an extreme two-sided issue WAR. >>>And yes, the hunter numbers/popularity is dwindling and it is why they are now desperate and recruiting children into hunting. Ironic too, that hunting is so promoted to the young yet they do NOT show the children's mascot or PR advertising/videos at gun shows etc....so why the dichotomy? Mixed messages for sure. "Don't touch a gun in the home if you see one" children are told, yet children are freely taught to handle and shoot guns at a young age when brought on hunting trips (too young to obviously have a choice there). WHAT child is going to obey that command after using guns, and not think they can handle a gun when they see one? Mixed messages that can lead to tragedy and HAVE. >>>Wake up and be aware of changing times and people's reassessment of past ways. Most of the next generation is not willing to take things for face value, and this is good. They are more in tune with nature and values and what is more in keeping with the spirituality of the earth, as to what is fair and important, and what needs changing, in order to make a better world. The only thing stopping this movement is the fact that hunters are more organized and financially funded, and thus contribute greatly to politicians of equal mind, who support them, but in time that will end too, as the numbers are dwindling, as previously mentioned. All in due time :-).
Paula Antolini January 29, 2014 at 11:09 AM
Scott show me the legitimate surveys that have been done of town properties in order to justify claims of a "plague" or a need to incinerate deer in large numbers? Or are you going by the across-the-board GENERAL averaged statistics put out by the DEEP, in order to judge just how many deer are on a given property per square acre etc.? It is a known "FACT" that deer numbers are inconsistent in different geographic areas, so one can not assume. 60 head per acre in one area could be 5 in another. And oh, did you read about the Redding game wardens who QUIT because they were asked to reduce the herds t less numbers than they felt appropriate? Yes well research THAT one too in your spare time. >>>Properties have existed for thousands of years without deforestation, or being over-run by deer, and yet suddenly there is a call for war against these creatures without substantial FACTS per TOWN and INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY. Oh it's MONEY again you say? Too much cost to do surveys? So that gives you the right to automatically ASSUME there is a problem, and extinguish numbers of deer by cruel means? Nature belongs to the people as well as hunters, who gave hunters the right to be irrational and believe their padded statistics? If you haven't noticed there is equal information on the other side too. Check the internet, you seem to like to do that. >>>FYI some local CT towns have chosen other methods to deal with issues, which do not include hunting as a solution, and I have not seen a rise in "Plague" as you suggest, nor in deforestation etc. In fact a preserve right NEXT to a recently purchased Bethel property (of 72 acres) has a rule that bans hunting, all in the aim to preserve the property. So why is that? And Bethel recently restricted hunting on that particular property too (according to a recent chat with First Selectman Knickerbocker). So why is that? Care to discuss? OH BTW, this was done AFTER I personally pursued this issue.
Scott January 29, 2014 at 11:47 AM
WOW you said a lot about nothing there. Where is it written you MUST purchase hunter orange? That is for hunters to be seen instead of camo so many hunters like to wear. Now if all you have is camo then I see a problem when you are in the woods during hunting season. Also there are seasons for a reason so technically there are days where there is no hunting as well as Sundays all year round. Hunting done with children HAS to be done w/ an adult so I don't understand your issue there and no one forces a kid to hunt....mine don't. They never asked so I never offered...maybe that will change who knows. I don't know what you are talking about when you say mascots.....honestly don't. OK so DEEP stats are bogus? What stats do you have to back that claim? I hardly think 63 deer is an incineration of deer in large numbers. Also your right about forests existed thousands of years but with big differences....less development AND predators which we eradicated. We can bring them back but when Fluffy or god forbid a child is killed we are back to where we started. There are plenty of preserves bought for that reason and allow no hunting but are you suggesting that once the deer hit over population there they will stop breeding or do you think they will move to another property? No hunter wants to shoot you and you know that BUT you FEEL unsafe because a hunter is in the woods. You have no statistics that say you are unsafe in the woods when hunters are present. You still ignore the questions I asked.....are those 63 deer more important than the thousands of animals killed for meat processing to feed Bethel families? OH and why do your tax dollars count more than mine? I will bet when some of these properties were bought the selling points were hiking, camping AND hunting for residents. If you don't think you are solely responsible for your safety who do you think is?
Scott January 29, 2014 at 11:57 AM
One more thing you are wrong about hunting decreasing but I'm sure these numbers are bogus as well.....2010 there was the low of 14,484,000 hunters in 2011 last year I could get data there was 14,974,000 hunters.
Paula Antolini January 29, 2014 at 02:01 PM
Scott even hunters suggest that non-hunters wear orange in the woods as a safety measure. Isn't it enough that hunters have accidents between themselves? Only an idiot would enter the woods unprotected knowing hunters are in there too. Many times properties are not marked properly, or at all too, to show where hunters are. >>>RE Seasons....are you saying that non-hunters should be limited to Sundays and off seasons in order to take a walk in the park? That's not acceptable. That's not acceptable. You are favoring one group over another and everyone has equal rights. >>>Yes I know children who are hunting need an adult present. DUH. >>>No one forcing a child to hunt? I doubt very much it is a child's idea to hunt and also a hunting family will expect (and encourage) a child to do same so what choice is there again for that child? I can show you many online videos where the child seems petrified and also revolted but the entire process while the adult is saying "isn't this exciting?" >>>If you are not familiar with how guns/hunting are promoted to children with mascots and cartoons then I cannot educate you here, look it up, you'll find it. >>>RE: DEEP and other stats.... again look it up, there are stats on both sides, in this "war." I am not doing your research for you, I thought you claimed to know all about this?
Paula Antolini January 29, 2014 at 02:03 PM
Scott... >>>Yes I agree, less predators but MORE development have affected the balance, but then again as time goes on we assess our handling of problems and reassess, nothing is carved in stone as the ONLY way to handle issues. You are stuck in a time warp unable to open your mind to issues of ethics and animal cruelty and question those "excuses" DEEP/hunters gives for allowing the carnage to take place, regardless of safety or whether or not it needs it on certain properties or at all. >>>I already posted links to numerous hunter accidents, what more do you need? Again just look it up, plenty of injuries and deaths. Even one is too many. If it were YOUR family you'd change your tune. Safety precautions were made for a reason and I'd really like to know what your issue is with that? Why NOT take safety precautions? Because numbers of accidents are low, according to your theory? Really? >>>The contrary is true too, from your statement about 63 deer....do you really think the death of 63 deer will make an impact in the scheme of things? Show me statistics on that. How many different properties was that from? Lessens the impact even more. How many of those became trophy heads too? What percentage of hunters actually eat the meat they kill? >>>RE: Safety issues.... I think it is the responsibility of everyone, to answer your question, including proper handling of the situation at hand to begin with, by intelligent discussion of the possible problems, to come to a viable solution, instead of a stubborn approach that hunting and animal cruelty is justified, no one is in danger, there is a plague, and everyone else is wrong, and have no right to disagree and show why things might not be acceptable, or problems are not being approached properly. Same with tax dollars, are important to all and require agreeable solutions. >>>Kind of ironic that wildlife agencies depend on the dollar to take care of all wildlife and all habitats, by having people come out and destroy animals in a painful manner. Oh, right. Also the wide-traveling trophy hunters of Safari Club International, for example, are the big spenders. HMMM. Something is wrong with that picture. >>>Some people believe that the NRA's extreme stand on guns has hurt the hunting industry. "A Maryland hunter, Ray Schoenke, has formed a new group, the American Hunters and Shooters Association, primarily as a home for hunters who would support some restrictions on gun and ammunition sales." Sorry Scott, numbers are dwindling for many reasons. "The American attitude regarding wildlife is changing."
H.serve January 29, 2014 at 03:42 PM
Of course there is always this: Genesis 27:3 ESV / 160 helpful votes Now then, take your weapons, your quiver and your bow, and go out to the field and hunt game for me, Genesis 9:3 ESV / 83 helpful votes Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. Genesis 10:9 ESV / 54 helpful votes He was a mighty hunter before the Lord. Therefore it is said, “Like Nimrod a mighty hunter before the Lord.” Acts 10:13 ESV / 45 helpful votes And there came a voice to him: “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” HelpfulNot Helpful Genesis 21:20 ESV / 45 helpful votes And God was with the boy, and he grew up. He lived in the wilderness and became an expert with the bow. Jeremiah 16:16 ESV / 42 helpful votes “Behold, I am sending for many fishers, declares the Lord, and they shall catch them. And afterward I will send for many hunters, and they shall hunt them from every mountain and every hill, and out of the clefts of the rocks.
Scott January 29, 2014 at 03:44 PM
Paula you are so off base its not even funny.....you yourself said there are places where there is no hunting...go there when its season. Again you don't HAVE to wear orange that law/rule was created because hunters were wearing all camo....you realize how a blue jacket sticks out in the woods? Please don't tell me how not wearing orange is death sentence because I hunt w/o it all the time in my tree stands. I have had people looking for me to harass me and walk right under me. If you see me I have already seen you and know your there. Listen until there is no more meat for sale there will always be hunting whether you like it or not. Hunting deer for population control is a by product not the sole reason...it helps but not the sole reason. There is no over population of rabbits or ducks but we still hunt those as well too and why? For sport and food plain and simple if it isn't your thing don't do it....same with guns don't like them don't own one. I will check back with in 10 yrs to see how the ban on hunting is going for you. Just because it is something you cant understand doesn't make it wrong or need to be stopped. So let me get this straight Ray created a hunting association because there is no hunters? Americas attitude is not changing....wildlife has always been one of our greatest resources and that is why it is managed the way it is. Take care I will not debate this anymore until there is a such time when my hunting privileges MAY be in jeopardy...which will be probably not be in our lifetimes. I have nothing to gain going back and forth with you.
H.serve January 29, 2014 at 04:05 PM
Well as much as you can say on both sides, deer are noble creatures that don’t intentionally harm anyone. On the other hand as a mother I can tell you I have not had good experiences with deer. I don’t want them exterminated, but on the other hand I have no love loss for them. Two of my three sons have hit deer with their cars or should I say the deer hit them, as in both cases they were actually stopped at the time, and the deer ran into them. Nothing happened to the deer but a good amount of damage was done to their cars. One with a dent in the side of his car and a broken windshield, and the other with a broken front plastic grill. Both occurred in Bethel and both with PD reports. You wouldn’t think a plastic grill would be so expensive but on his Audi it was. In both cases nobody was hurt including the deer, but this was not the case for my third son who contracted lime disease as a child, and has been battling it ever since. He was immediately treated for it, actually before the bulls eye even appeared, but for some people it does not go away, and he has had several flare ups over the years that have left him with limited feeling in his lower extremities. Most people are OK after the antibiotic treatment, but he was not so lucky. He contacted it while playing at a friend’s house that had a lot of brush in their back yard. My sister-in-law just moved here from NYC and she contracted it simply by walking her dog at a condo complex on the grass. These instances where our hard luck, but it does not make it any easier to see my son suffering years later. Now obviously killing 63 Bethel deer in the hunting season is not going to make any difference whatsoever. We still say look, look, when we see deer alongside the road feeding on the grass, and I still think they are beautiful animals. That being said there is no feasible method that does cost millions of dollars to implement concerning deer population control. We can’t even get sidewalks in most of Bethel, so I don’t think voters are going to be so inclined to raise their taxes substantially. In fact about 15 years ago Bethel was just about to lose their schools accreditation because there was not enough money in the budget to fund the schools correctly. You can argue about it till the cows come home, but nobody is going to change Paula’s opinion about hunting. The killing of animals by shooting is an emotional dilemma that will not be solved in the pages of the Bethel patch.
Bethel Observer January 30, 2014 at 12:26 PM
Congrats, Paula...yet another thread you have hijacked with your over-emotional demand for relevance. LOL!!
Don Warfield February 03, 2014 at 06:32 AM
Deer hunting is also an ecological issue...
Bethel Observer February 03, 2014 at 09:55 AM
Don Warfield, exactly. Death is necessary to keep the population healthy and growing. Whether that comes through natural causes (disease, etc.) or through the focused hunting efforts of men, it benefits the whole of the herd to be culled thusly.
Paula Antolini February 03, 2014 at 10:05 AM
BO and Don you can spin this any way you want and sideways, but I've said this before and will say it again, I have a problem with the process, it is never justified to inflict extreme pain and suffering on an animal, and also ignore many other safety issues for humans too, in order to do the "recreational sport." There are many alternative methods to solve any of the problems you'd bring up, and if money is your issue ask what wasteful spending the govt. uses funds for instead of this issue....and why many preserves do NOT employ the methods you say are so needed, yet statistics do not say those areas have a rise in the problems you state exist. Also what is your problem with using the word "killed" instead of "culled" or "harvested"? Call it what it is. Also go over the figures once more, both sides of the issue can prove what they are saying, depending on how you twist the facts. Also tell me what surveys have been done to indicate certain areas/properties NEED this killing done? GENERAL surveys for the entire state of CT do not hold for all individual properties or towns.
Don Warfield February 03, 2014 at 11:15 PM
BO and Paula, I simply indicated hunting deer is an ecological issue. Speak for yourselves. I did not offer an opinion one way or the other.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »